RAM JANAM Vs. RAM DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 8.4.1992 passed by Civil Judge Balia in Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1989 by which appeal was allowed and judgment and decree passed by trial court i.e., Additional Munsif-VI, Ballia in Civil Suit No.575 of 1985 dismissing suit on 15.4.1989 was set aside and plaintiff's suit for cancellation of sale deed was decreed. Feeling aggrieved the defendant has preferred this second appeal which has been admitted vide order dated 10.12.2003 on following two substantial questions of law :-

(2.) The brief facts relating to the case are that plaintiff respondent Ram Din filed Civil Suit No.575 of 1985 in the Court of Munsif Ballia (West) seeking relief for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.5.1985, allegedly executed by Ram Din in favour of Ram Janam, in respect of the land, detailed at the foot of plaint viz., plot no.500A area 0.14 acre, 500B area 0.46 acre and 491 area 0.34 acre, total three plots area 0.94 acres, which is registered in Bahi No.Ist Zild 945 page 60 at Sl.N.2066 on 3.6.1985. It was contended that land in question situate in village Chachia Pargana Sikardarpur Garwi district Ballia of which plaintiff is bhumidar in possession with transferable rights and defendant has no right, title or possession, over the same but when the plaintiff was sowing paddy in his fields, defendant Ram Janam disclosed that he has obtained from him a sale deed of his land, which appears to have been obtained by impersonation of someone else in place of plaintiff as plaintiff never visited office of Sub-Registrar for execution of deed. That plaintiff Ram Din neither executed the impugned sale deed nor presented the same for registration before Sub-Registrar nor received any sale consideration of Rs.16,000/- which is shown to have been paid under the impugned sale deed and is inadequate also; that plaintiff is still in possession over the land in suit.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations of plaint and contended that it is wrong to say that sale deed has been obtained through impostor rather the same was executed on payment of valuable, valid and adequate sale consideration and has been executed in good faith.